13 from an article in Science by Lloyd Keigwin of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution [32]. Keigwin called the use of his data “very misleading” [42]. They were a historical reconstruction of sea-surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea and, in his words, “not representative of the planet as a whole [as the advertorial could be taken to imply]. To jump from the western North Atlantic Ocean to the globe is something no responsible scientist would do…There’s really no way those results bear on the question of human-induced climate warming….” • A 1996 advertorial claimed that “greenhouse-gas emissions, which have a warming effect, are offset by another combustion product – particulates – which leads to cooling” [43]. In 1985, ExxonMobil scientists had reported being “not very convinc[ed]” by the argument that “aerosol particulates . . . compensat[e] for, and may even overwhelm, the fossil-fuel CO2 greenhouse warming” [19]. By 1995, the IPCC had rejected it. Q14: What are the impacts, if any, of your findings and conclusions to the body of climate science and current discourse on climate change? A14: Our work does not stand in isolation, but complements and corroborates earlier investigations. At the onset of our study, substantial evidence from investigative journalism and scholarly research suggested that ExxonMobil had misled the public on a variety of aspects of climate change and in a variety of ways [1,44–53]. The purpose of our investigation was to bring to bear an additional, complementary empirical methodology to test the hypothesis that ExxonMobil had misled the public; namely, the first empirical assessment and intercomparison of ExxonMobil’s private and public statements on climate change. It may therefore be relevant to ongoing and/or future climate litigation or investigations. Our study was also designed to respond to ExxonMobil’s claim that relevant documents (supplied by ExxonMobil) would exonerate the company. Our results affirm the reverse: the documents that ExxonMobil proffered provide strong evidence that journalistic investigations of this matter have been largely correct. By applying the quantitative methodologies of consensus measurement and content analysis, our results add to (i) earlier analyses of ExxonMobil’s communication practices, (ii) qualitative accounts of the company’s climate change communications, and (iii) the application of consensus measurement/content analysis to climate change communications. In addition, this study contributes to the broader literature on climate change denial, corporate issue management and misinformation strategies, and the social construction of ignorance. Our study was reportedly one of the ten “most talked-about climate change-related papers” of 2017 [54]. Q15: Based on your findings and conclusions, would you say that ExxonMobil’s communications, specifically its “advertorials” about climate change,